Re: RFS: Jampal (2nd try)

[Benoît Knecht <benoit.knecht@fsfe.org>]

Hi Peter,

Peter Bennett wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "jampal".
> This is my second attempt. I have fixed errors that were pointed out to
> me last time.
> 
> * Package name    : jampal
>   Version         : 02.01.03-1
>   Upstream Author : I am the upstream author. Peter Bennett
> <pgbennett@comcast.net>.
> * URL             : http://jampal.sourceforge.net
> * License         : GPLv3 or higher
>   Section         : sound
> 
> It builds these binary packages:
> tagbkup    - back up and restore mp3 tags
> jampal     - mp3 song library management system and player

I reviewed your package, and here's a list of things that could be
improved:

  - Your debian/watch file currently matches the upstream version
    'build-Linux-x86_64-02.01.04', which is not what you want; you need
    to refine it; also, this file shouldn't be executable.

  - lintian -I --pedantic jampal_02.01.03-1.dsc reports the following:

      P: jampal source: source-contains-svn-commit-file svn-commit.2.tmp
      P: jampal source: source-contains-svn-commit-file svn-commit.tmp
      P: jampal source: source-contains-prebuilt-windows-binary misc/windows-32/mbrola.exe
      P: jampal source: source-contains-prebuilt-windows-binary misc/windows-32/pttsjni.dll
      P: jampal source: source-contains-prebuilt-windows-binary misc/windows-32/libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll
      P: jampal source: source-contains-prebuilt-windows-binary misc/windows-32/ptts.exe
      P: jampal source: unneeded-build-dep-on-quilt
      W: jampal source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.9.1.0 (current is 3.9.2)

  - debian/copyright: I don't think ID3V2 is a free license; it doesn't
    seem to allow modifications, only redistribution. Also, you may want
    to upgrade to the latest DEP-5 revision.

  - debian/control: you recommend openoffice packages, it seems
    overkill. "The Recommends field should list packages that would be
    found together with this one in all but unusual installations" [1],
    would you say it's the case here?

    [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-binarydeps

    Your long description seems a bit convoluted and you repeat the
    words "the library" a lot. Also, your spelling of ID3v2 is not
    consistent. Have a look at [2] for the best practices.

    [2] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-debian-control

  - debian/patches: if you're upstream, you shouldn't have any patches
    here, you can merge them directly.

  - debhelper compatibility level should be 8 (in debian/compat and
    debian/control).

Cheers,

-- 
Benoît Knecht